This interview originally appeared in the Belgrade News. It is reprinted by permission of the author.

In one corner are the “environmental wackos” — the tree-hugging activists who chain themselves to logging machinery to halt progress. In the other corner are the “greedy developers” — the bulldozing capitalists who don’t care two hoots about spotted owls.

Enter into the fray the Property & Environment Research Center (PERC) of Bozeman, Montana, which has been thinking outside the (recycled) box for nearly 30 years.

Their mission is to address green concerns through the free market and property rights, while highlighting the fact that government intervention often harms the environment. It’s an intriguing, even sane, concept. Dr. Terry L. Anderson, the executive director of PERC, explained how it can successfully work in a freewheeling question and answer session with Isabel Lyman. In addition to being a writer, lecturer, skier, fisherman, and hunter, Dr. Anderson is a Montana State University professor emeritus of economics — a modern renaissance man.

IL: What exactly is a free-market, pro-property rights environmentalist?

TA: Free market environmentalism is a way of creating environmental responsibility using property rights and markets. It has two tenets: 1) wealthier is healthier and 2) incentives matter.

The first refers to the fact that environmental quality improves as societies become wealthier. The second is captured in the phrase “No one washes a rental car.” Owning something rewards the owner for good stewardship and holds the owner liable if he harms others.

Consider property rights in the context of Yellowstone bison. Visitors to Yellowstone enjoy seeing the bison, but the National Park Service is not responsible for the “pollution” they cause if they transmit brucellosis to Montana’s cattle herd.

IL: So, in light of the above definition, what do market-oriented environmentalists think about the looming federal cap-and-trade carbon legislation?

TA: Cap-and-trade limits some activity (the cap) such as emitting SO2 or CO2 or fishing and allows the owner of the cap to use it or trade it. In the case of fishing, fishers are assigned a right to a share of the allowable catch. PERC research shows that this has improved fishery management by making fishers part owners in the resource. Instead of the fishery being like the rental car which no one washes, share owners have an incentive to be good stewards.

Applying cap-and-trade to CO2 is much more complicated than for fisheries. It is more difficult to set the caps; caps are more difficult to enforce, and the costs of controlling carbon are very high. These costs could amount to $2500 per household annually, and they would be disproportionately born by the poor.

IL: Do you have an opinion, yet, on the new U.S. Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar?

TA: Indications are that the Department of Interior will spend billions on alternative energy in an effort to offset limiting fossil fuel on public lands. I expect the red ink to flow, the energy produced to be small, and the environmental benefits to be trivial.

The Department is continuing to throw money at Indian reservation poverty. I wrote in the Wall Street Journal that poverty on reservations is due largely to the lack of property rights and the rule-of-law. To overcome these problems Salazar should give Indians property rights to their land and help them improve their court systems.

IL: What do you think the United States’ top environmental concerns will be during the next two decades?

TA: The top concern will be global warming, though I am skeptical that it ought to be.

My top concern is to find more and better ways to make improving environmental quality profitable, which is the only way to make it sustainable. PERC’s Enviropreneur Institute brings environmentalists together to learn how to apply free market environmentalism to real problems. The challenge is to replicate their success stories.

IL: On a personal note … what did you hunt in Africa?

TA: I’ve hunted most antelope species and have taken a Cape buffalo and a lion with my bow. Even there, free market environmentalism is at work. Most hunting in Africa rewards private owners for their stewardship because hunters and tourists pay for their experiences on private lands and native communal lands. The adage “if it pays, it stays,” is alive and well in Africa.

Dr. Anderson recently appeared on ABC’s 20/20 discussing endangered tigers.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

MarkGlen said:

	The bigger picture We will never be able to satisfy environmentalists. Because I think environmentalism is a conspiracy, among other counterpoints, to overthrow the United States and all capitalism. If and when the world conspiracy takes over the world they will trash the world as did the Communists to Russia after they took over Russia. I'm not saying we should abuse the land.
	report abuse vote down vote up

May 29, 2009 | url
Votes: +6

Pat Henry said:

Supersession of "environmentialism" is a great answer! Dr. Anderson's rhetoric, at least, taps into the deep consciousness we all have that we must keep our earth environment clean and safe. But with profound advantage of also tapping into the spiritual consciousness and proven law principle (e.g., Thou shalt not steal) that private property is the only practical way to help insure the goal is met. Utopia never will be. "Isms" (scientISM, as distinguished from science; StatISM, as opposed to a law-bounded, liberty-preserving Civil Government; environmentalISM, etc.) are quick-answer, total-solution reactions. Dr. Anderson is pointing the way forward. We need not be pessimistic, because Providence is naturally on the side of Law and Truth. There is no "answer," to pollution, etc., anymore than to racism, abuses, and the wide variety of lurking ills on this earth. The answer lies in the human heart, whence springs action. Managing that is the great end of legislation; not controlling, but wisely managing. Dr. Anderson sums this up nicely: "incentive." This supersedes fiat "regulation," because even the best regulations will be skirted when self-interest is greater. I applaud you for pointing the way forward, Dr. Anderson!

report abuse vote down vote up

June 01, 2009
Votes: +3

danwhitehead1 said:

Agreed MarkGlen and Pat Henry are both correct. We should be good stewards of the environment. I'm sure the Lord isn't pleased when the land is carelessly ruined, but neither is He pleased when we turn it into something to be worshipped. The so-called "environmentalists" aren't really interested in protecting the environment anyway; they are interested only in control ('til it happens to their private property, that is, and then it's suddenly no good). Private property ownership, the ability to do what you will with what is yours, is the foundation of any free people.

report abuse vote down vote up

June 02, 2009
Votes: +3